Chandan Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.70773 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2018 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Chandan Pandit, Son of Ram Ekwal Pandit, Resident of Village- Babu Narha, P.S.- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 25 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Informant has alleged that FIR named accused and his associates has killed his brother by stabbing and allegation of stabbing is against Raushan Kumar and Aditya Kumar @ Belwa. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been named by witnesses during investigation as having been present there. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.70773 of 2018(2) dt.10-12-2018 2/2 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pupri, Sitamarhi, in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 25 of 2018 subject to the conditions that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T